§ 1.1 Field of the Invention
The present invention concerns a user interface which facilitates a decision making process, for example, for planning a trip. In particular, the present invention concerns a user interface that visually links related information rendered in multiple windows. Alternative choices may be visually depicted.
§ 1.2 Related Art
§ 1.2.1 The Problem of Decision Making and Planning
Over the past few decades, two trends have permitted computer users to access a wealth of data and information. The first trend was the explosion in the amount of relatively inexpensive data storage means. The second trend was the increasing interconnection of computers, first by local area networks (or “LANs”), and more recently by wide area networks (or “WANs”) which may be private, such as intranets for example, or public, such as the Internet for example. Both of these trends are expected to continue.
Although computer users now can access a wealth of data and information, challenges in interpreting data and using data and information to complete tasks remain. Applications for statistically processing data and for visually depicting (e.g., with pie charts, bar charts, graphs) data are widely available. Similarly, using data and information to complete relatively simple tasks is straight forward (e.g., determining the least expensive three or four bedroom home in Virginia using a relational data base).
However, many tasks involve making decisions based on a number of factors (or choices) and are subject to initial uncertainty or vagueness. Such decisions typically require fixing or limiting the value of one or more factors (or choosing), interpreting the result, and iterating towards a desirable result. For example, in the context of planning a trip, factors may include (i) what one wants to do, (ii) when one wants to do it, (iii) where one wants to go, (iv) how much one wants to spend, etc. Choices in a group of factors may limit choices in that group or another group. That is, options are narrowed as choices are made or factors are fixed. For example, if a person defines a budget of $1000.00 for a vacation, and decides to spend $400.00 on airfare and $400.00 on hotel accommodations, and decides that they will need $150.00 for meals, that person will not have the option of a $200.00 helicopter tour unless they increase their budget.
Again, in the context of planning a trip, such as a personal vacation for example, a person in Virginia might want to see a Washington Redskins football game, visit an aquarium, visit Aunt Betty in Delaware, see the Statue of Liberty and see autumn foliage. Time constraints should be accounted for. For example, when will a user's work schedule allow them to take a vacation, on what dates do the Washington Redskins play at home, when are aquariums and the Statue of Liberty open, when will Aunt Betty be home. Places may be determined. For example, do I want to see autumn foliage in Virginia or Vermont and do I want to visit the public aquarium in Baltimore, Md. or Camden, N.J. Budgetary limits may also be checked. For example, are those Redskins tickets going to cost too much? As choices are made, other choices are affected. For example, the peak time for autumn foliage in Vermont is late September, but the peak time for autumn foliage in Virginia is mid October. Further, data and information related to each of the factors may be best represented to a user in different ways. For example, time or date factors may be best represented on a calendar, cost factors may be best represented as a summed number, geographic factors may be best represented on a map, etc.
§1.2.2 Known Decision Making User Interfaces and their Perceived Limitations
The foregoing trip planning scenario illustrates the challenges involved in performing or planning complex tasks having a number of variables. The articles: L. Tweedie, R. Spence, D. Williams, and R. Bhoghal, “The Attribute Explorer”, Video Proceedings, CHI '94, Boston, Mass., ACM Press (1994), downloaded from http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/resarch/information/www/LisaDir/at tv.html on Jul. 29, 1998 (hereafter referred to as “the Attribute Explorer article”) and H. Dawkes, L. Tweedie, and R. Spence, “VICKI—The VIsualisation Construction KIt”, Advanced Visual Interfaces Conference, Gubbio, Italy (May 27–29), downloaded from http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/research/information/www/LisaDir/V ICKI/VICKI.html on Jul. 29, 1998 (hereafter referred to as “the VICKI article”) discuss tools for exploring “problem space” using a two dimensional graphical user interface (or “GUI”). The GUIs discussed in the Attribute Explorer and VICKI articles use sliders to permit parameters to be adjusted. Results are then fed back to the user via color coded histograms. More specifically, the Attribute Explorer and VICKI articles discuss manipulating factors (e.g., type, price, number of bedrooms, and garden size) in a house purchase task or decision. The various attributes are related via color.
Unfortunately, the GUIs discussed in the Explorer and VICKI articles are two dimensional and depict data related to various factors in the same way. Therefore, it is believed that these GUIs are not as useful when various types of data or information are best depicted in different ways.
The article, L. Tweedie, R. Spence, H. Dawkes, and H. Su, “The Influence Explorer—A Tool for Design”, downloaded from http://www1.acm.org:81/sigchi . . . ceedings/videos/Tweedie/I t2txt.htm on Jul. 29, 1998 (hereafter referred to as “the Influence Explorer article”) discusses a similar GUI in which the relationships between performance results and design parameters are depicted. Unfortunately, as with the GUIs discussed in the Attribute Explorer and VICKI articles, the GUI discussed in the Influence Explorer article is one dimensional and depicts data related to various factors in the same way. Therefore, it is believed that this GUI is not as useful when various types of data or information are best depicted in different ways.
The VISAGE product, from MAYA Design Group, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pa. permits information objects to be depicted in various frames (e.g., a hierarchical outline, a bar chart, and a map). Using a hierarchical outline, a user can navigate through the information by “drilling down” (or segmenting aggregated data) and “rolling up” (or aggregating segmented data). Each of the frames has a script which governs the appearance of objects that the frame contains. Color is used to coordinate the same object shown in various frames. Objects can be dragged and dropped within and between various frames. Although the VISAGE product depicts data in various ways, the same data (not merely related information) is depicted in each of the frames. Furthermore, the VISAGE product depicts objects in frames in only one or two dimensions. The VISAGE product is discussed in the articles: S. Roth, M. Chuah, S. Keredjiev, J. Kolojujchick and P. Lucas, “Towards and Information Visualization Workspace: Combining Multiple Means of Expression”, downloaded from http:www.cs.cmu,edu/˜sage/HCI-journal-96/HCI-journal.html on Jul. 29, 1998; J. Kolojujchick, S. Roth, and P. Lucas, “Information Appliances and Tools in Visage”, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, pp. 32–41 (July/August 1997); P. Lucas and S. Roth, “Exploring Information with Visage”, downloaded from http://www.maya.com/visage/base/papers/mayaVid.htm on Jul. 29, 1998; and P. Lucas, C. Gomberg, and S. Roth, “Visage: Dynamic Information Exploration”, downloaded from http://www.maya.com/visage/base/papers/mayaDemo.htm on Jul. 29, 1998.
None of the “decision making” user interfaces introduced above exploit three-dimensional graphics. As discussed in § 1.2.2.1 below, some known three dimensional user interfaces are concerned with accessing information, but not with using information when making decisions.
§ 1.2.2.1 Known Three Dimensional User Interfaces to Information
User interfaces providing a three dimensional depiction of related information have been discussed. For example, the article: Robertson, et al., “The Next Generation GUIs: Information Visualization Using 3D Interactive Animation,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 4, pages 57–71 (April 1993) (hereinafter referred to as “the Information Visualizer article”) discusses various proposals for an “Information Workspace”. The Information Visualizer article discusses a perspective wall which permits information, having some sort of linear relationship or thread, to be presented in the relatively narrow aspect ratio of a typical video monitor. When an item is selected, the wall moves the item to a center panel as if it were a sheet in a player piano reel. Its intuitive three dimensional metaphor allows smooth transitions among views, thereby helping a user to perceive object constancy. Files may be classified by their modification date. Although the perspective wall technique lends itself to information having a linear (e.g., timeline) thread, it is less useful for other types of information, or for information in which a linear thread is unimportant. Furthermore, the perspective wall is not specifically designed for facilitating an iterative planning or decision making process.
Similarly, in the video, R. Kullberg, “Dynamic Timelines: Visualizing the History of Photography”, CHI '96 Video Program, first 4:19, also discussed in the thesis of the same title, downloaded from http://robin.www.media.mit.ed/people/robin/thesis on Aug. 5, 1998 (hereafter referred to as “the Dynamic Timelines thesis”), a three dimensional user interface to photographs is discussed. Unfortunately, the photographs have a linear, and more specifically, a temporal, thread. Also, like the perspective wall, the dynamic timeline is not specifically designed for facilitating an iterative planning or decision making process.
§ 1.2.3 Unmet Needs
In view of the foregoing, there is an unmet need for a user interface which facilitates planning or making decisions based on a number of factors (or choices). Since factors may be subject to initial uncertainty or vagueness, such a user interface should facilitate an iterative planning or decision making process, allowing the user to make partial and/or vague decisions during the process. The results of alternative decisions should be visualized. Relationships between information should be depicted. These depictions are not limited to relating the same information shown in different ways. The user interface should permit a single display to include different windows of different types of related information such that a unified view of the task is presented to a user. However, the user interface should permit easy user interaction with any one of the different windows. Finally, intelligent help and access to information that may be needed or useful to complete the task should be provided to the user.